Phil Jones, the professor behind the "Climategate" affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised. He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.
But Professor Jones said he had not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process. He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made. But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period...
His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that".
Hmm. I wouldn't win any prizes for a tidy desk myself, any more than this chap would. But it is somewhat unfortunate.
7 comments:
Nicely put.
Why am I not convinced by his excuse?
Because this is what its all about:
new economics foundation
A think tank advocating a 21 hour working week, absurd.
An example of their nonsense "Globalisation and over-consumption pushing the planet into ecological debt. Rich countries must consume less so that we can live within the limits of our ecological resources."
Similar stuff is all over the site.
Seems like anyone can call themselves a scientist or economist these days.
Do you think the Earth's resources are unlimited, then? It's easy enough to laugh at the true hairshirters who want us to sit around in the dark in caves weaving clothes from human hair, but at the other end of that spectrum, the pursuit of indefinite economic growth by the rich nations and the aspiration of the poor nations to join them are unsustainable. There are hard physical limits ahead, both ecological and material, which the ingenuity of free-market driven technology will not be able to resolve.
I see the Chinese are already planning to restrict the export of rare earths -- important in the manufacture of electronic devices -- hoarding the dwindling supply for themselves.
Interesting times.
Erm, yes and no, never heard of recycling? and conservation of energy (in physics not politics)?
Sure through entropy it'll be all over one day, but that'll be an extremely long time, millions of years.
The different resources countries use change over time depending on economic availability, we there is no 'parity prices'.
There is enough Uranium to power the world for a few thousand years, and by that time we will have developed Fussion power. Assuming we don't all kill each other first.
If you want to talk about a lack of resources its not power, its food, and thats caused by out of control birthrates in Africa and the MiddleEast.
The West isn't responsible for massive population increases.
Besides, its leftists like Brown who are responsible for the Wests over consumption, with 10 years of artifically low interest-rates, causing a consumer spending boom.
I'm appalled at the wate inherent in our current era of petty individulaistic materialism.
However I think with advancing technology we cand more with less, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, exploiting asteroids, the moon.
The future belongs to the groups who can do these things. Thats white folks or east Asians.
Obama has just decided the US dosent need to go back to the moon after all. Our own forward thinking elites in the UK long ago decided we didnt need anything as silly as our own space program. Look up dear old Black Arrow.
As Wikipedia says:
As of 2009, the United Kingdom is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a satellite launch capability
Who says our (UK/US) elites can't still lead the world!
"Somewhat unfortunate" is, I assume, sarcasm.
If this were someone researching something interesting but essentially unimportant, such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I suppose you could forgive him his little peccadilloes, inaccuracies, bias, secretiveness, conspiracies against people who disagree, and so on.
But as in fact this is someone who thinks that on his say-so, and because of his activities - which are not, under any circumstances, to be challenged or debated - we should destroy our economies and pauperise ourselves, why then somewhat higher standards are required.
And by those standards he is a failure and ought to be an embarassment.
Post a Comment